Inhabitants of Ware v. Inhabitants of Wilbraham

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Inhabitants of Ware v. Inhabitants of Wilbraham

21 Mass. 45

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedSeptember 29, 1826

StatusPublished

This text of 21 Mass. 45 (Inhabitants of Ware v. Inhabitants of Wilbraham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Inhabitants of Ware v. Inhabitants of Wilbraham, 21 Mass. 45 (Mass. 1826).

Pincite

Opinion

Parker C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. We think the verdict in this case stands right, it being for the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred by the plaintiffs for the support of a pauper belonging to the defendant town. Their right to this sum is derived from the general statute providing for the relief and support of paupers,¹ and cannot be taken away, except by some subsequent statute, the terms or which must be strictly complied with.

[48]*48The St. 1821, c. 94, [see Revised Stat. c. 46, § 15,] provides, that if the defendant town shall, within thirty days after notice, remove the pauper from the plaintiff town, it shall be charged only at the rate of one dollar per week. The defendants, instead of showing that they did remove, show only that they prepared to do the act, and that they were prevented by the voluntary removal of the pauper.

It is argued, that to all the purposes intended by the legis lature, this removal is equivalent to a removal caused by the defendants ; hut we do not see it in this light: for we think that the great object of the provision was, to give an inducement to towns to admit the settlement of paupers and thereby save the expense of litigation. This purpose is not answered by a voluntary removal.

Technical rules support this construction ; for the removal provided for is to be considered a condition precedent to the diminution of expense.¹ Now such a condition must be strictly performed 2 which has not been done in the presen case.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Parker C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. We think the verdict in this case stands right, it being for the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred by the plaintiffs for the support of a pauper belonging to the defendant town. Their right to this sum is derived from the general statute providing for the relief and support of paupers,¹ and cannot be taken away, except by some subsequent statute, the terms or which must be strictly complied with.

[48]*48The St. 1821, c. 94, [see Revised Stat. c. 46, § 15,] provides, that if the defendant town shall, within thirty days after notice, remove the pauper from the plaintiff town, it shall be charged only at the rate of one dollar per week. The defendants, instead of showing that they did remove, show only that they prepared to do the act, and that they were prevented by the voluntary removal of the pauper.

It is argued, that to all the purposes intended by the legis lature, this removal is equivalent to a removal caused by the defendants ; hut we do not see it in this light: for we think that the great object of the provision was, to give an inducement to towns to admit the settlement of paupers and thereby save the expense of litigation. This purpose is not answered by a voluntary removal.

Technical rules support this construction ; for the removal provided for is to be considered a condition precedent to the diminution of expense.¹ Now such a condition must be strictly performed 2 which has not been done in the presen case.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Mass. 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inhabitants-of-ware-v-inhabitants-of-wilbraham-mass-1826.